(Not) The Last Straw

Let’s be clear: Disappointed (but hardly shocked) as I am by President Bush’s speech today, I’ll still be voting for him come November. Unless, that is, by some miracle the Democrats nominate someone I could trust with sharp things.

Of course, the list of remaining Democratic contenders with that requisite has dwindled to zero. And the starting number was one. Buh-bye, Joe Lieberman.

I voted for Bush in 2000 for the simple — and sole — reason that he wasn’t Al Gore. All that changed a few days after 9/11, when he stood on that pile of wreckage, loudspeaker in hand, arm around a rescue worker, and said, “I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.”

In that one moment, I became proud of my vote for George W. Bush, and I looked forward to voting with pride for his reelection.

Now, when I pull the lever for him next fall, I’ll do it the way proper Victorian women were supposed to approach sex — “Close your eyes and think of England.”

everyone needs to calm down and the gays need to get off the freakin crosses.

this really surprises everyone? first gays SHOVE their way into society with the “if you don’t accept us then you’re a bad person” crap. then we get the legal shuffling up in MASS and THEN in SF they just plain say “ah screw the law we want it and we’ll take it.”

what choice do conservatives have? what other recourse is left? it’s clear that gays couldn’t care less about playing by the rules unless the rules are in their favor. they muscled into the game, then they tried changing the rules to suit them, then finally they just plain stopped playing by them. why do gays even care about an amendment? it’s not it applies to them, they’re obviously above the law right?

How about saving the Constitutional process for true matters of national importance instead of trying to use it as a club for your pet social issues?

How about allowing states to make their own decisions about gay marriage. Each state has a constitutional process that can be used if judges in a particular state step out of line. Why is marriage in Massachusetts a federal issue? Why should anyone not in MA care what MA courts and legislators define marriage to be? If those judges in MA went to far, the MA legislature will amend the state’s constitution.

There already is a federal law, DOMA, which hasn’t even been challenged in court yet, much less actually struck down (and most observes who have looked at the issues say the US SC would NOT strike DOMA down) and you are already running to take your Sharpies to the Constitution, because some clown mayor in SF in engaing in a publicity stunt.

Donald Sensing brings up a good point. The Full Faith and Credit Clause (Article IV section 1) provides for marriage legitimacy across state lines. A couple married in NY is still married when they move to PA. If a gay couple gets married in San Francisco or Massachusettes and then moves to, say, Texas, Texas is forced to recognize it as a legitimate marriage. Therefore, as soon as gay marriage is legal in just one state, it is legal in every state. I’m sorry, but that is just too much power to give to a mayor or 5 judges. This needs to be decided by the people. We have a process to deal with issues like this and that is what the President is proposing we use.

I think Hugh got it exactly right:Now as to domestic partnership benefits, I am a moderate. Whatever legislatures pass is fine by me. I believe in the small “d” democratic process. I do so because I believe in freedom -

Therefore, as soon as gay marriage is legal in just one state, it is legal in every state

That is not correct. DOMA, passed in 1996, prevents that from happening. For your scenario to become tru, the US Supreme Court would have to overturn DOMA, something that I find very unlikely. Hell, they just finally voted 5-4 to overturn Bowers v Hardwick, which made gay sex illegal. Do you really think they can make the jump from that to full-fledged gay marriage in a couple years?

Not to invoke Godwin, but can anyone else think of situations where economically successful, well-educated minorities are legally prohibited from fully engaging in society?

I don’t mean to equate Bush with Hitler or Jews with gays–though they were persecuted in the Holocaust as well–but I have serious concerns about what other things might be up for amendment or what other legislation might be pushed through. I’m a lifelong Republican voter who’s planning to vote Libertarian this year because of today’s news.

As for defense and War on Terror issues, isn’t that more a function of our military than our President? Now that we’re in Afghanistan and Iraq, I don’t see Kerry or Edwards pulling us out anytime soon, especially if our soldiers can achieve progress and a Democratic president can claim it as a success of his own. The Congress is almost certainly going to remain Republican, and God knows they’ll keep the military funding high, and feed whatever data is necessary to keep the fight going.

I hate to say this, but if the civil rights movement had started off in the early 1940s, would it have been ethical not only to ignore it but to legislate against those freedoms? Does anyone seriously think this problem is going to go away if the FMA is passed?

May I suggest an experiment? Explain to randomly-selected Black folk how the unavailability of gay marriage equates with slavery and Jim Crow. Better yet, explain that to Black folk old enough to remember the latter. (I know where you can buy cast iron underwear.)

Close, but (as Monica might say) no cigar. While miscegenation laws identified which categories of men and women were not allowed to marry, they accepted the traditional Judeo-Christian definition of marriage. And there remain legitimate exclusions from traditional marriage to this day.

This is not a Judeo-Christian Iran or Saudi Arabia. Further, the “Judeo-Christian” definition of marriage clearly forbids adultery, divorce, and remarriage (except for the female widower, who must marry her late husband’s brother). Let’s outlaw those too?

I was talking philosophy, not cases. Your philosophy, at least as I understand it, directly permits gay incest, since the civil issue of “deficient offspring” has been removed. That was, after all, your only objection to Tonto’s suggestion.

Let’s say I’m a judge, and two brothers sue to be allowed to get married to each other. If I have “gay marriage is a protected Constitutional right” to work with as a precedent, do I have any basis in law or fact to reject their petition? After all, they truly love each other, and “yuck” doesn’t cut it any more.

Here is the problem I have with this whole mess. (And yes, it is a mess.)

On one coast, we have a court that said regardless of the people’s will, gay marriages should be allowed. That the laws were in conflict and separate was not equal. (At least I will say that while I strongly disagree with their ruling, it strikes me as more logical and rational.)

On the other coast, we have a mayor who said “Screw the law and the will of the people.” Then issues marriage licence illegally.

This latter tactic is I find hypocritical. First you want the benefits of the law, so in order to obtain them, you violate the very law you are demanding benefits from.

Essentially, on both coasts we’re told that no, reasonable people cannot disagree. If you disagree with them, screw you.

Bush comes out and supports a move to put this issue to the people. Yes, it is handled via the Senate, and the various legislatures, which in turn are elected by the people. In the case of California, I suspect that means a popular referendum on the ballot which means the entire state gets a vote.

Make no mistake about it. Marriage is a fundamental societal institution. The proposed change will radically alter that institution. Whether that change is for good or ill, that is debatable, but what is not is that the definitive answer will not be realized until its too late. Until after the change has been made and the effects compared with what happened before.

For such a drastic change to so fundamental an institution, I think it is far better to have a vote on it, than allow it to be decided by judges. Objection to the proposed amendment essentially boil down to screw the people and what they want or think.

And as Steven noted, there are more pressing problems and reason to vote for Bush than his position on this subject. Marriage, gay straight or whatever, don’t mean a thing if you are dead.

Whew! I have perused many sites today, and many are filled with much ado about nothing.

Common comments about Bush:

Bigot–oh puhlease.

Trashing Civil Liberties–umm, did I miss the last gay bashing party??

last I checked, homosexual’s rights are protected just the same as ANYONE when it comes to discrimination.

The real kicker is this; Those opposed to gay -marriage- are opposed to the courts changing the definition of it. For the most part, not counting those that are opposed to gay marriage out of revulsion for gays themselves.

I am opposed to gay -marriage-, but I am not opposed to recognized civil unions, with which should come all benefits that come with -marriage- (insurance, social security benefits, survivor’s rights, etc etc etc) ie: protecting the rights of same sex couples who are committed should be treated the same as a -married- man and woman.

This is what is really being missed by the moonbats and blowhard pundits, either intentionally or with ignorance.

As far as DOMA, the fear is that the judges such as those in MA would decide to ignore it and somehow make a worthless piece of paper.

One other amusing comment:

isn’t it funny how those against an ammendment are acting as though they would have no say in the matter? Haven’t these idiots read the ammendmet process, or for that matter taken a civics class. goverment class, anything that resembles common knowledge of how our constitutional system works…..ack! silly me, public schools…my bad.

Bush was on the right track when he brought up the Constitution. How about a Constitutional convention to get the judiciary back under control?

Right now judges are essentially running this country. Laws passed by Congress or states simply don’t matter, since courts have given themselves the power to overturn any law they don’t like, or even worse, force lawmakers to follow their rules when making law.

You need to vote for Bush for no other reason than he will appoint judges who actually read the Constitution and have respect for judicial precedent. If you want this country to be entirely run by appointed-for-life activist judges that invent the law as they go along, by all means vote for anyone else.

This is a big who cares issue for me, state legislatures should buck up and pass some type of civil unions, allow gays to adopt and get and the like. Courts should not be involved, Constitutional ammendments should not be used like this. I voted for Bush in 2000 becaus he was for tax cuts, vouchers, privatitizing soc sec, I will vote for him in 2004 because as he said I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon.” and then he followed it up with action. Clinton used words but never followed it up. Kerry thinks its a police matter, he is not a serious man

I’m with Kevin on this one (and Stephen too). This is a bunch of hyperventilating about something very few people really care about. I am disappointed in people who say that they will vote for someone (or will vote against someone) based on one issue if that issue is not the most important issue of this young century — whether the US will allow radical Islam to continue to infect the Middle East and spread throughout the West. FOR ME, THAT IS THE ONLY THING THAT MATTERS IN THIS ELECTION! I don’t give a crap about “No Child Left Behind” and other nonsense, when the thing Bush has been fighting involves an insidious form of evil that, if left unchecked (as I feel it would have been by Gore and would be by Kerry), would have far more damaging effects in the US than some unfunded mandates foisted upon the states. As Andrew Sullivan would say “On the War Against Radical Islam, Bush gets it.” That’s all that I care about (well, I do like tax cuts, too).

P.S. – I will cut Andrew a little bit of slack for his overreaction to the FMA. Unlike him, I have no dog in this fight. But if he really fails to vote for Bush (or worse, votes for Kerry) over this, I will lose a measure of respect for him. He has identified the fight against radical Islam as an important fight that must be won by the US, but would allow his very personal disappointment to cloud his judgment on this issue. Deep down, Andrew knows that Bush is the man to take this fight to our enemies.

There will be no rational debate here folks. This is a Culture War. You can blame the Gay Left and their allies for the War, it is hard to have rational discussion when one side accuses the other of “fag hating,” “fascism” and “bigotry” at every opportunity

Personally I think we should rationally debate and discuss and basically let our democracy work on an important issue such as changing a 5000 year institution.

Too bad the Gay Left and their allies have stooped to rhetorical bullying and bomb throwing.

I will vote for the candidate who is most likely to achieve strategic victory in Iraq, and the wider world. Period. Any who don’t believe that the specific President will have an effect on the odds of achieving strategic victory, or that failure to achieve startegic victory will not be a world-historical disaster, are deluding themselves. We are on the precipice of an era in which the technology of mass slaughter is going to become increasingly ubiquitous, and it can no longer be tolerated that despots with access to suffcient resources needed to facilitate the acquisition of such technology are left to their own devices.

Does this require one military invasion after another? No, but it requires constant pressure on these despots, pressure than can take various forms. Even a semi-functional, somewhat non-despotic state in the middle east applies pressure to the despots in the region, and failure at this time would be an utter disaster, in that it would signal that anything goes, since the U.S. lacks the wherewithal to shape events. A perfect defense cannot be constructed, and in an era of open, dynamic, economies, one cannot simply try erect barriers to those who seek the tools of mass slaughter. If this were merely a matter of truck bombs, or even airline crashes, such an approach might have merit. Unfortunately, however, the world is changing; the genie is climbing out of the bottle, and anything less than people with some power of self government will be insuffcient to the task of shoving him back inside.

Is there a gay marriage supporter out there who can tell me why the government should provide benefits to two gay men living together but not to two straight men? Why should a gay couple be entitled to the financial benefits of marriage, if two sisters or roommates living together don’t qualify?

Seems to me the only reason my tax dollars should subsidize stable sexual behavior is if it may result in kids. And don’t give me Volokh’s “70-year-olds are allowed to marry, so why not gays?” argument. There’s a bright line between gays and straights, but not between fertile 30-year-olds and infertile 70-year-olds.

I’m quite serious about wanting an answer to this. If subsidizing gay relationships made financial and societal sense to me, I’d probably support it. But I just don’t see the benefit to society, unless we also include under the umbrella folks in non-sexual relationships.

on or about July 25, 1995, in United States v. Halliburton Co., U.S.D.C. Criminal Case No. 95-CR-157-ALL (S.D. Texas), Halliburton pled guilty to illegally exporting goods to the terrorist nation of Libya in violation of 50 U.S.C.

I’m quite serious about wanting an answer to this. If subsidizing gay relationships made financial and societal sense to me, I’d probably support it.

OK, Katherine, a serious questions, and a fair one. Basically, I would ander it by saying that supporting stable intimate relationships are in the interests of society.

People who seriously set to commit their lives to each other are more stable then single people. They tend to own and improve their homes, be involved in stabilizing their neighborhoods and communities, are less likely to engage in anti-social behavior, generally improve their property values and invest in their communities, have a future-oriented outlook, basically behave like responsible adults, because they have made the choice to commit for life to another person…that is serious, not something done on a whim, properly, and as such it shows a maturity and planning for the future that can only benenfit society as a whole.

It’s not (or at least it shouldn’t be) merely subsidizing babies like some kind of welfare system.

If the Mass Legislature had enabled gay marriage, I would have said “whatever.” Instead, we have judges making up law.

If the Cal legislature had enabled gay marriage, Prop 22 had failed, and there had been some Prop XX that said “marriage is two adults” and passed, I would have said “whatever.” Instead, we have people elected to follow the law violating it.

I don’t really think the FMA is the best solution, but we no longer have the will to implement the best solution.

If the governor of Mass had said “the court violated its oath, so I will not enforce its decision” and the legislature had impeached and removed them, there would be no support for a FMA, and no atmosphere of crisis. But these days, a court can say “red is green” and we will all get killed in traffic intersections.

I won’t link to all the posts on this all over the place, just click on any link on my blogroll and you’re bound to find countless opinions ranging from disgust to support to pledges to not vote or to…

I listened to what the President said live..and did anybody else catch what he said about civil unions and how he went out of his way to make sure that that issue was left with the states? It seems to me that he is forcing a constitutional issue on the basis of the activist courts’ work with pushing the boundries on a whole host of issues not just this one. The president does not seem to be limiting anybody’s rights. The civil union laws will have to be respected across state lines just like marrige would be, and gays could still get married in a social service and still have all the protections of law through civil union statutes. It seems the president, if you listen to what he said, is pushing for the states to define civil unions and leave marriage definitions alone.

..BTW.. If the democrats would nominate a FDR or a Wilson or JFK then I would “trust them with sharp things” until then I will stick to the canidate that Osama hates..

catman is exactly right. If the liberals and libertarians would stop wailing and flogging themselves long enough to listen to what Bush is actually saying, they would see what he’s really trying to do.

What he’s supporting is basically a back door around the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution for this particular issue. Since the judiciary is no longer capable of handling gay marriage in a responsible way, an amendment is needed to prevent 4 judges from establishing a nationwide policy. That way, the issue can be left up to the stateS and not *a* state.

Thanks for the answer, Mike. I’m still not sure why two women wanting joint tenancy and survivorship benefits etc. should have to assert that their relationship is sexual, but I do see your point. I’ll keep thinking about it.

I do devoutly wish conservatives didn’t have to worry about the Supreme Court deciding the issue. I do not want to see an amendment to the Constitution over this, but neither do I want to see another Roe v. Wade take it out of legislators’ hands. Mainstream views on abortion seem to have trended more conservative since Roe (ultrasounds and all that), and I expect views on gay marriage to trend more liberal in the next 30 years. And ironically, we may end up stuck with outdated laws we can’t get rid of on both issues.

The truly funny thing is that if you replace the word ‘marrage’ with ‘civil union’ then support would skyrocket, including adding the President to your side. Despite what the activists would like you to believe, almost everyone on the no gay marrage side agrees that gay unions should have the same rights under the law as marrage.

The only people being closedminded here are the gay ‘rights’ groups. Their primary interests are not with civil rights. If that were the case then they’d just do this linguistic mumbo jumbo to protect the sanctity of marrage while enjoying all the rights of a married couple. No, this is about forcing everyone to share your viewpoint.

Has anyone else noticed that this pushes John Edwards out to the margins while Democrat blow-hards and other constitutionally-illiterate hand-wringers wet their pant over this non-issue? This is his make or break week and all he can do his jump up and down in a far corner and shout “hey, look at me, I’m against anything Bush if for, too!!”

Since it’s the topic of the week, I can see why people don’t think gay marriage is a good idea. Marriage has been around quite a long time and many government policies are attached to it at many levels. It’s so complicated that a big change would cause a lot of problems. I don’t think those problem would be significant though. I doubt it would increase fraud in immigration much; however, healthcare and other fraud should be looked into.

These things can easily be dealt with by defense of marriage requiring that homosexual couples demonstrate intent to adopt a child to be married. It’s not the “everyone is equal” ideal solution (since when was government perfect and everyone equal?), but it has many plusses: it ensures that the couples that marry are actually gay, it highlights virtue and responsibility in the gay community, gives incentive to adopt and reduces abortions without using restrictions, etc.

I, however, would like to go the other route and have the government simply not recognize marriage at all. Then everyone is treated equally.

Katherine you rule baby! So sensible. I’ll shut up now since anything I say at this point would be a case of piling on Stephen. Whats interesting is after visiting sites like Drums, Atrios, etc., I’m more than a little surprised by the energy coming from the right in these comments. Good to see!

These things can easily be dealt with by defense of marriage requiring that homosexual couples demonstrate intent to adopt a child to be married.

Oh, I see…it’s not a real marriage until you breed, or adopt. Thanks for straightening us out, Aaron.

Seems to me the only reason my tax dollars should subsidize stable sexual behavior is if it may result in kids.

Seems to me, as a child-free person, that my tax dollars shouldn’t have to go toward subsidizing the life choices of others, Katherine, to the tune of $1,000 per whelp. Not to mention the ever-increasing cost of rent or (I should be so lucky) mortgage payments due to perpetual tax hikes for “da sk00ls.” Or the continual encroachments on my civil liberties from the left and the right alike “for the sake of da chyldrun.”

Personally, I’d rather have a nice, quiet, middle-class gay couple living next door to me than six screeching rugrats who litter the lawn with their kindercrap and torment the neighborhood pets…but whose doting pahrunts whine, when you politely ask them to correct their offspring’s behavior, “What’s the matter? Don’t you like kids?!”

Bravo Reg! And having had the pleasure of living with the nice gay couple next door, I can tell you it’s paradise. As one half of a interracial marriage with no kids and no plans to have any, I get the strong sense that there are many out there who would oppose MY right to enjoy the benefits of marriage. What’s the difference between me and my wife and my neighbors? They’ve been together eight years, we’ve been together seven. We both own houses. We both pay taxes — though we pay more on account of the marriage penalty. We both split our votes in elections because we’re one democrat and one republican. Niether wants kids. We’re both Episcopalian Christians. We love and support our parents, are patriotic, have professional jobs, and obey the law.

There’s one difference between us: our sexuality. We can get married and they can’t because of what we are. And we live in Virginia, so until 1967, we even had that in common. Here’s what the Supreme Court said to the Virginia legislature’s argument that God made people in different colors for a reason, and it was wrong to go against that:

“Marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival… To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State’s citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.”

Now, unless you are among the gang that still believes that being gay is a choice, some moral failing that should be fixed, then what possible basis do you have to justify denying this “fundamental right” to any loving lifetime couple?

Bush does not equal Hitler, and Gays are not Jews, and the struggle for the right to respect and the right for marriage is not the struggle against slavery or even the Jim Crow laws. But there is a direct parallel between the miscegnation laws and the prohibition of gay marriage.

I said in my comment that it wasn’t ideal. I intended to imply that it wasn’t fair, but that it is a possible strategy (possibly a step in the right direction) and may even be able to draw support from the christian right through anti-abortionists. It’s just an idea.

I also said that I think the concerns about how gay marriage will affect the country are unfounded, but what’s being done to alleviate these concerns? I was thinking trial group, but it might be as simple as pointing out how marriage affects the nation and how gay will only increase what are considered to be positive effects. I thought that might be a way to do that.

Hopefully the amendment won’t pass. Hopefully it was never intended to. Maybe it’s just a very distasteful political stunt.

I do not think the amendment is intended to pass. I believe it’s a way of trying to shut up the far right.

This issue should not be Federalized! Let each state work it out: get 50 different “laboratories” researching all the various legal sub-issues that will crop up. That’s the way to go.

And: if gays/progressives could just have a little patience (particularly on the linguistic nicety of labeling the relationship “marriage,” rather than a “civil union”), that would be the best tactic in the long run.

Interesting that you put an image of a guy defending his family with a gun together with an image of a guy claiming “AIDS is God’s Curse”. Surely, the right to defend oneself and one’s family belongs in the “world I want to live in”.

“Nevermind that Kerry is a vietnam hero. Nevermind that democrats won The Great War. ”

In 1918. That was quite a long time ago. Also, our victory in that war did not make the world safe for democracy – it removed from office the one man with the motive and the means to block the rise of Hitler.

So you’ll forgive me if I don’t automatically conclude that today’s Democrats are trustworthy on the War on Terror based on that little tidbit.

Oh yeah, and since Kerry came home, his votes on defense issues left quite a bit to be desired.

Lots of talk, but nobody seems to be getting down to the basis of the total discussion.

The whole basis of this contentous discussion is whether or not someone believes there is such an entity as God and, if so, does He oppose homosexuality.

Either you believe He exists (or know it) or you don’t. It’s pretty explicit that He doesn’t care for homosexuality.

From the libertarian perspective, one would think they would be asking far-reaching questions, like, does pervasive homosexual behavior harm or help society. Oddly enough I don’t see much discussion in their camp about that. [Note: This leads me to think that most libertarians are myopic. But that's just my current impression.]

Welcome to the world of the real, people. What we make of it is what our children will have to live in….that is THOSE OF US who have such.

It’s a culture war. The fates of nations depend upon it. But, let’s try to keep it ‘civil’.

Regards,

Chuck(le)
[Children: Messages we send to a future we will never see.]
P.S. You know you were successful as a parent, when your grand-children grow up well.

The issue, as best I understand it, for fueling the insistance upon “marriage” for gays vs. civil unions is the need for acceptance and approval of the lifestyle.

The impact of this, long term, would be the necessity for all educational activities mentioning marriage to inform children of both “flavors” of marriage in a neutral context.

While I have no dog in the fight of gays marrying, cohabitating, or whatever, as a parent I cannot say that my best first hope for my child is that he be gay. And I am opposed to having the lifestyle presented to that child as an equally attractive option to heterosexuality. I have difficulty believing that it is in the interests of society to have that state of affairs created without thoughtful and reasoned debate.

And that kind of debate is in the minority from what I observe thus far.

I have moved from a position favoring civil unions for gays to one of discomfort with that position because of the method used to circumvent our legislative process.

This approach has created the backlash. And all the next door neighbor gays will pay for the rashness of the radical gay activists.

“Not to invoke Godwin, but can anyone else think of situations where economically successful, well-educated minorities are legally prohibited from fully engaging in society? ”

Well I believe that the US explicitly disallows bigamy and that some people in Utah had to change their behavior as a result. Or at least keep it underground.

Also, if you want to stretch things a bit, you can argue that adults whose religion conflicts with liberal society are often restricted (Think some types of arranged marriage or even minors having abortions without informing their parents)